Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: the "human life" fallacy
Message-ID: <3514@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-Aug-84 21:50:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.3514
Posted: Fri Aug 24 21:50:16 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Aug-84 06:35:16 EDT
References: <8144@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 38

[from Paul Torek:]
>The standard "pro-life" argument says that the fetus is human, and all humans
>have a right to life, therefore the fetus has a right to life.  There is a
>fallacy of equivocation in the argument, however.  In the first premise, the
>word "human" is taken to be a biological term.  In the second premise,
>however, "human" is taken as a moral term.  

>If the equivocation is avoided by taking the first occurrence of "human" as
>a moral term, then it is no longer open to the pro-lifer to argue that the
>humanity of the fetus is a biological fact.

Why?  Why can't it be argued that the fetus is both biologically human and
has a moral right to live?  It might require an extension of the standard
syllogism, but is that not possible?

>If the equivocation is avoided
>by taking the second occurrence as a biological term, then the second
>premise can be doubted.  For what it then says is "All members of the
>species Homo Sapiens have a right to life."  That statement is essentially
>question-begging, unless some argument can be given for it.

All I think that you have done here is illustrate the difficulty of treating
two aspects of humanity (moral and biological) separately.  Is it really
possible to do this?  Isn't our humanity more composite than that?   The
crux of the matter seems to be in the apparent distinction you are making
between "members of the species Homo Sapiens" and a "human being".  What
is the basis of that distinction?  Are we not both at the same time?
My point is that when we think of a human being we don't think in just
biological terms ... or just moral terms.  In considering the abortion issue
(or any human rights/life issue) are we justified in considering the parts
of what makes up "humanity" to the exclusion of the whole?  What happens
when we do that with, not just the fetus, but any human being?
-- 

Paul Dubuc 		{cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd

  The true light that enlightens every one was coming
  into the world...		(John 1:9)